So, let's settle this once and for all:
Are viruses living or non-living organisms? My Biology textbook hasn't a clue.
>>7989293
That's actually extremely difficult to say. They are the midpoint between things like proteins and things like bacteria.
>>7989293
They're an elegant demonstration of how biochemical systems can develop the ability to self-perpetuate despite not being particularly complex. The sort of systems that evetually developed into more complex life.
But no, conventionally their inability to reproduce with their own machinery denies them that label.
>>7989293
They're typically considered non living because they don't reproduce in their own and they don't have a metabolism.
>>7989293
Virus are kinda like catchy songs in layman's terms. They aren't living but they still spread and multiply between hosts due to their ability to catch the host's attention.
>>7989310
Yes, but they can replicate themselves in host cells.
Bacteria also don't 'reproduce', they merely divide into more of the same. Should we not consider them living either?
>>7989324
Binary fission is reproducing.
Not all reproduction is sexual.
>>7989408
I know asexual reproduction exists.
But is that really much different from what viruses do? Both are creating clones of themselves. Viruses just use a host cell to do it.
>>7989428
Not being able to do it sans use of another organism's machinery is itself the distinction. Without the existence of hosts, it is just a chemical that will degrade and disappear forever.
A living thing can make more of itself without relying on another organism given food and suitable environmental conditions.
Are bacteria sentient at some level?
>>7989428
If you consider viruses alive you have to consider prions to be alive
It's just semantics.
Who gives a shit.
>>7989504
But aren't hosts "food and suitable environmental conditions".
>>7989621
No. Viruses dont grow, they dont metabolise, they dont do anything except interfere with an actual organisms machinery. Its just a protein with some nucleic acids. They are life-like maybe, but not life
>>7989310
>The sort of systems that evetually developed into more complex life.
>Viruses
Wanna know how I know you're still in high-school?
>>7989428
Fuck off retard
>>7989542
Well, prions do not contain genetic material.
Anyway, even though this is a troll thread I will let myself be baited and say that this discussion is fucking stupid
Are prions alive?
Are viruses alive?
Are mitochondria alive?
Nobody fucking cares.
View life as a gradient instead of a yes/no.
>>7989678
So they are almost alive but still carry DNA? What came first a DNA or the first virus?
>>7989690
>prions do not contain genetic material
True, but genetic material is not part of the definition of life
>View life as a gradient instead of a yes/no
Actually totally agree, theres a nice grey area between simple organic chemistry and life, and viruses etc. all fit into that area, and im ok with that
>>7989702
Viruses evolved from complex life, not the other way around
>>7989690
>Wanna know how I know you're still in high-school?
Because you're presumptive and less knowledgeable than you believe?
Most biologists usually say they aren't alive, they aren't cells, they have no metabolic functions, and some even crystallize when dried like salts or sugars.
I suppose if you define life as genetic material which can reproduce and evolve you could classify it as alive; however, if you were to put a virion in a sealed container it would just sit there like an inanimate object, waiting to bump into a cell
>>7989702
Super rusty on viruses, but pretty sure they're all rna and a casing. No one call me stupid if I am totally wrong. It's just idk
>>7989504
>without relying on another organism
>food
Food can be another organism.
>>7989744
> Viruses evolved from complex life, not the other way around
Do you mean after?
If not, what kind of life did it come from?
>>7990110
I meant from. Viruses were originally proteins created by complex life. Different viruses have originated many times from different kinds of organisms
ITS FUCKING SEMANTICS YOU DUMB FUCKING FAGGOTS IT HAS NO IMPACT ON HOW THEY ARE STUDIED
ACCORDING TO A BUNCH OF OTHER FUCKING FAGGOTS WHO DEFINED LIFE, VIRUSES DO NOT FIT THAT DEFINITION AND ARE THEREFORE NOT CONSIDERED LIFE
IF YOU CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF LIFE TO INCLUDE DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF VIRUSES THEN THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LIFE
>>7989293
They really do straddle the definition between living and non-living. They aren't really living in the biological sense, rather simply "active" and "inactive". I say this because they require host machinery to do practically anything and do shit for all in their extracellular state (i.e their virion state, outside of a host)
>>7989324
Bacteria reproduce via binary fusion though. They are in fact living because they carry out metabolic activities (just look at methane producing bacteria for example or our gut microbiota in general) and don't require host machinery
>>7990106
That's distinct from reproduction, and not a rule.
You eat consume something for what it is composed of, not what it is.
I would say yes, but I'm a Christian so what the fuck do I know
>>7990160
take your meds, Billy
>>7990160
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU
THIS DEBATE IS FAR MORE INTERESTING THAN THE 764TH MATH HOMEWORK THREAD, OR 547TH POPSCI/STUPID QUESTION THREAD
>>7989293
If you consider mitochondria and chloroplast alive then viruses are alive too. Otherwise it's just complex biochemical machinery (well not even that complex, in the end it's just a protein shell + some DNA or RNA). A bacteriophage can bind to a bacterium even if the capsid does not contin viral DNA. It's a spontaneous process.
>>7989293
I have a mac so I don't have to worry about viruses
>>7989744
Genetic material IS one of the parameters that define life.
Also, i believe that viruses are a sort of life, sure they miss out on a lot of criteria that defines life as we know it but an entity actively looking for the means to perpetuate itself is in my book a living being.
>>7990377
>Genetic material IS one of the parameters that define life.
Yes, ONE of the parameters.
What about
- metabolism
- homeostasis
- autonomous replication
and so on?
Your argument summed up:
>this table is made out of wood, therefore it's a tree
>>7989293
They're not living. All they do is replicate themselves, they don't even shit or transform energy
>>7990212
>Billy
<.< >.>
Biological structure that works but doesn't live.
>>7990388
Like i said, viruses have many shortcomes to our definition of life. Im very aware of those.
But to put a virus on the same level as a rock is dumb, eventual mutations to its genetic info may lead to those functions you refered.
Your simplification falacy falls short, since a table cant become a tree regardless of how much radiation you throw at it.
>>7990482
The standard. You know, that they teach at the uni level.
>>7989293
Why does it matter? Living or nonliving are completely arbitrary categories of things.
>>7990542
>put a virus on the same level as a rock
nobody does that, but the compelxity of a cell is several magnitues larger
>simplification falacy
There's no way for a virus to become anything more. They're literally protein shells with a few genes. You're trying to simplify an actual cell. Learn about cell biology before shitposting.
>>7989310
pmuch this
label is an excellent word for what life actually is at microbial levels
>>7989324
>Bacteria also don't 'reproduce', they merely divide into more of the same.
What do you think reproduce means
>>7990096
Thanks for posting.
>>7989293
I believe that viruses are non-living (for a lot of the reasons already posted in here). I reckon that anything which can respond to immediate changes in its surrounds (chemotaxis in bacteria, for example) is alive.
>>7989702
RNA is thought to be the first of the information coding material. Once thermodynamics governed the formation of membranes through hydrophobicity, and there was enough separation within these closed off shells, it was a game of chance until RNAs formed within the closed off environments and sampled enough permutations until replication was physically favorable.
>>7989293
For the people who've read GEB:
my take on this question is that though all viruses practice self-reproduction, most do not practice self-reference. From this it is clear to us that the virus does not practice any computation! And therefore it is not really alive. This is why they lose their complexity - and why it seems that they do not fit the category of life. However,
1. There are giant viruses that carry their own amino-acid production genes (e.g. mimivirus, mamavirus). I would qualify these as being alive, though they are obligate parasites.
2. All virus contain code. They have a function, meaning, and place of their own. This sounds very close to the human social definition of life.
>>7989690
>Wanna know how I know you're still in high-school?
>>7990976
>giant viruses that carry their own amino-acid production genes
Bacteriophages also carry genes (env), which code the envelope proteins. It's actually more unusual for a virus not to have those. What's special about the giants is that they have their own metabolic genes for the processing of amino acids, sugars and lipids + a repair enzyme.
>>7990542
>eventual mutations to its genetic info may lead to those functions you refered.
And stop being a virus to become something else?
